andrewcriddle

I think it is clear that Tertullian regards Nero as persecuting and not just slandering Christians see for example from Ad Nationes
As to why (assuming Tertullian knew the Annals as well as the Histories) he didn't quote this passage, I have previously suggested that Chritian apologists in time of persecution might well be reluctant to publicize the idea that state action against Christians originally arose from a belief that Christians are terrorists who burn down cities.

Andrew Criddle

Lucretius

According to Tertullian in "An Answer to the Jews" Adversus Iudaeos Chapter 8 , Jesus was supposed to have been executed


Now these are the consuls mentioned at the very beginning of Tacitus Annals book 5.1 just before the manuscript breaks off for the two year gap in the narrative.

Roger Pearse

I don't know whether he knew Latin. Some translation mistakes in the citation of Tertullian he gives have been taken as indicating that he was using a bad Greek translation, now lost.

There is some evidence that the vulgate version of the TF could influence other texts. Jerome's version of the TF in Latin, in the De viris illustribus, is somewhat different from that in the vulgate of Josephus and Eusebius; but in the Greek translation of Jerome's work, his citation of the TF has been 'normalised'.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

PhilosopherJay

Hi Lucretius,

I had considered that Tacitus talked about Pilate in the suspiciously missing Annals. However, the introduction of Pontius Pilate "as one of our procurators" tends to diminish that possibility.


If the missing Annals had included information about Pilate, they would certainly have mentioned his title. We should have expected to find something like, "As I mentioned before, Tiberius's Prefect was Pontius Pilate ...," or "I forgot to mention that when Tiberius sent Pontius Pilate, to be the Prefect of Judea he executed this fellow named Christus..."

I assumed that the interpolator would have checked and found out that Pontius Pilate was not a procurator, but a prefect if anything about him was included. However, I now see the possibility that the missing Annals were already ditched by the time the interpolator did his work. So although we can say that the interpolator did not know of any prior reference, we can't be sure that there was not any. In fact, one would suspect that if it was a small reference it would have been rewritten. Thus, if Pilate was talked about at all, it is likely Tacitus devoted a great deal of space to him, thus making a minor correction impossible and making the gross elimination of entire books necessary.

Incidentally, while I think Eusebius has to be the chief suspect, the one factor that mitigates against the idea of him forging the text is a lack of reference to the passage in his History. This means either he made the changes after he wrote the History, or he was being extremely clever and simply saying through Tertullian "Consult your records" to draw people's attention to it without making people suspicious that he himself did the job. The alternative possibility is that someone after Eusebius made the changes.

Unfortunately for Eusebius, he is the chief suspect in so many forgery cases, (TF, Abagar, Hegessipus, Pamphilius, Constantine etc.) that one has to put him at the top of the list when one discovers that History has been played with.


Thanks to everybody for their kind and interesting comments,

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

the_cave

Mods, have Bede and spin ever squared off on this issue (or related issues)? I have a feeling they have. Just curious.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Andrew,

When I first read the passage out of context I also got the idea that Tertullian was referring to actual persecutions against Christians. In fact when we read the passage in context this notion disappears and it becomes obvious that Nero's persecutions are only metaphorical persecutions through slander. Here is the passage in context.

Note that the passage is talking about rumors ("It must needs have originated some time or other from one mouth". The passage does not refer to any governmental persecution of Christians, it only refers to what people believe about Christians and don't believe.

The entire work is addressed to an anti-Christian Roman and Tertullian repeatedly makes the point that Romans know nothing about real Christianity. It cannot be imagined that Tertullian expected his Roman audience to know that Nero physically persecuted Christians, especially after telling us how ignorant his audience is of any real Christian history.

Tertullian is only telling his audience that Nero is responsible for the rumors of savage Christian rituals. His case would be much stronger if he did tell his audience that Nero also organized physical persecutions of the Christians and would be stonger still if he referred his audience to Tacitus's passage about Nero's persecution of Christians for the fire in Rome. The fact that he does not do this indicates that Tertullian knows neither about the specific passage in Tactitus or about any physical persecutions by Nero. He is only suggesting that Nero is the "one mouth" "by whom the report could have been spread."

It is only through an anachronistic reading of the text that we can imagine that the text is referring to any physical persecutions of Christians by Nero. Tertullian's claim that Nero was the first to bad-mouth the good Christian name is a long way from Eusebius's claim that Nero was the first Roman Emperor to physically persecute Christians.

Also note that Tertullian in this passage is not reluctant to bring out the claims that Christians are criminals who imagine crosses will bring them eternal life, kill infants and eat bread dipped in their blood, hold orgies and break up marriages. It is difficult to believe he would be reluctant to say that Nero falsely accused them of arson.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Lucretius

While my argument for at least part of this passage being an interpolation is based on Tacitean and Non-Tacitean style ,I think it is worthwhile to compare the two sentences I quoted earlier to show how Tacitus' style can be determined
Now the sentences are about exactly the same thing i.e. the Consuls in 29 A.D. under Tiberius


The first one is Tacitus and as far as I am aware there is no dispute about this ,the second one is Tertullian and again there is no reason to doubt this.
But look at the way each author presents exactly the same information

Tacitus uses a degree of conciseness but not by using shorter words
He says
"Rubellius and Fufius ,both called Geminus were Consuls"

Tertullian says the same thing but says
"Under Tiberius Caesar Rubellius Geminus and Rufius Geminius were Consuls "

Tacitus avoids repeating the name Geminus but still leaves us in no doubt that they are both called that.
This to me illustrates why in my opinion

seems far too basic for Tacitus and in fact appears to me to be written by a later author (I hasten to add I am not necessarily saying it was written by Tertullian but it appears to me to date from his time or later )

Also note the use of the word Caesar in Tertullian's sentence this is either anachronistic (later Emperors used this as a title and not a name ) or is an example of a later usage of two names rather than the traditonal three or even Tacitus general use of one ,I do accept that at times Tacitus used two names in the Annals but while he does, it still isn't too common in the Annals
All this leads me to think that the sentence that I question is a later style of Latin and so probably not by Tacitus.
I have more things to say on this subject and plan to do a revised and expanded version of my original analysis some time early next week.

Edtied to point out the Rufius/Fufius difference exists in the texts of the authors and is not a typing mistake by me.

andrewcriddle

Whatever the right interpretation of Ad Nationes the Apology seems to make clear that Tertullian believed that Nero had physically persecuted Christians
Tertullian certainly confronts the popular current slanders against Christians. My argument is that the idea that Christians started the Great Fire of Rome was not a popular current slander in that sense nor something historically claimed by Nero. (Apart from Tacitus there is no hint of Nero admitting that the fire was arson but seeking to blame someone else.)


I think that Tacitus rewrote what actually happened (Christians were persecuted as part of an attempt to propitiate the supposedly angry Roman Gods in the aftermath of the Great Fire) so as to suggest that they were falsely accused of literal arson.

If you read the text as it stands very carefully, although it clearly means to give the impression that Christians were accused of arson, it blurs the line between this sort of claim of direct criminality and broader ideas of alleged responsibility.

If Tacitus had been challenged by someone claiming that, even though people thought that it was tolerating nasty Christians that brought down judgment on Rome, no-one thought they literally started the fire; then he could just about have argued that that was what he had meant anyway.

My particular speculation about what happened may be wrong but I am reasonably convinced that the fundamental problem is that a/ the idea that Nero blamed the fire on arson by some minority group is unlikely to be historically true b/ it is also unlikely to be a Christian invention.

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay

Hi Andrew,

I agee with your final points that Nero probably didn't blame the fire on a minority and Christians probably didn't invent it.

Now, if you read the Apology of Tertullian, you'll notice that there is only one chapter, chapter 5 where Tertullian gives us a geat deal of historical information about Christianity. You may also note that the entire paragraph is parenthetical. Erase it, and read chapter 6 right after Tertullian's chapter 4 and you'll see how much stronger his argument becomes and how much more homogenous the style is. In chapters 4 and 6 Tertullian is making general points about the quality of laws and their mutable nature.. The author of chapter 5 is telling us about the relationship of early Roman emperors to Christians. This is an important theme of book II of Eusebius's History. On this ground alone we can deeply suspect it of being a Eusebean interpolation.

Warmly

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

Hi Lucretius,

Fascinating. This naturally puts Jesus's death in 29 C.E., about 4-5 years earlier than the death of John the Baptist if we believe the interpolation about John in Josephus.

What can you tell me about this Latin from Chapter XV of Tertullian's Scorpiace.
My main question is: "Do you think it matches Tertullian's style?" I have the strongest suspicions it is another Eusebean interpolation. Just before this Tertullian appears to say that he has read of Paul's beheading in Acts. That seems quite probable to me. (A later editor of Acts, I suspect took it out and sent Paul on to Rome). However I cannot understand what these sentences mean, especially as it appears that Tertullian is claiming he found them in Suetonius's "Lives of the Caesars." There is nothing in there naturally about Peter or Paul. The only thing I can imagine is that the same hand that interpolated Tacitus, intended to interpolate these things in Suetonius. For whatever reason, he never got around to it.

Warmly,


Jay Raskin


Warmly,

Jay Raskin